BinaryData Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 http://torrentfreak.com/judge-ip-address-doesnt-identify-a-movie-pirate-150410/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Torrentfreak+%28Torrentfreak%29 Sorry for the long link and if it is in the wrong section! I just want to see how everyone feels about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noir Angel Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 Rulings like this always please me, the system has been overran by corporate bullying. Ok, so in most cases the people who have their IP addresses are actually pirating stuff, but it is possible for people to wi-fi squat so I believe the evidence should be more conclusive before taking a person to court. Nogib and +Anarkii 2 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neufuse Veteran Posted April 12, 2015 Veteran Share Posted April 12, 2015 no different then a red light camera... doesn't prove who was at the wheel, only the owner of the device.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+John Teacake MVC Posted April 12, 2015 MVC Share Posted April 12, 2015 Especially with NATing One IP could be thousands if not hundreds of thousands of users..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BinaryData Posted April 12, 2015 Author Share Posted April 12, 2015 Rulings like this always please me, the system has been overran by corporate bullying. Ok, so in most cases the people who have their IP addresses are actually pirating stuff, but it is possible for people to wi-fi squat so I believe the evidence should be more conclusive before taking a person to court. I agree. I do download TV-Shows and movies. I know exactly how this could be fixed. There are enough IPv6 Addresses out there to assign 1 to every person for every device. Absurd thought I know. no different then a red light camera... doesn't prove who was at the wheel, only the owner of the device.... Mmm.. Depends the cameras here, take a shot of the plate, and they take a shot of the drivers face. Which is kind of scary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vcfan Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 +E.Worm Jimmy and Sszecret 2 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sava700 Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 Sure I agree here but what does this mean for how they continue to send letters out or have ISP's send notices to stop etc etc. I got one of those damn notices from Comcast cause of a friend downloading crap on his laptop while using my wifi but yet I got blamed lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noir Angel Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 I agree. I do download TV-Shows and movies. I know exactly how this could be fixed. There are enough IPv6 Addresses out there to assign 1 to every person for every device. Absurd thought I know. Mmm.. Depends the cameras here, take a shot of the plate, and they take a shot of the drivers face. Which is kind of scary I don't know if this is the same for you guys but the shift to IPv6 is happening very slowly here. Despite my cable network providing good speed (I'm on their fastest package which is currently 152mb) they still have no interest in IPv6 adoption which sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunkyMike Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 http://torrentfreak.com/judge-ip-address-doesnt-identify-a-movie-pirate-150410/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Torrentfreak+%28Torrentfreak%29 Sorry for the long link and if it is in the wrong section! I just want to see how everyone feels about this. It was normal for lawyers in countries such as Germany to use this method. i.e: "How did you obtain my clients contact details legally?" The answer to that is .. they didn't so it automatically gets tossed. Loads of people still paid up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noir Angel Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 Same with o2 UK and the porn lawsuits. They're nothing more than bullies, they send intimidating letters to extort payments to people. Though I don't have a problem with people receiving reward for their work, I do despise the way copyright law is enforced. Shiranui 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
compl3x Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 Rulings like this always please me, the system has been overran by corporate bullying. Ok, so in most cases the people who have their IP addresses are actually pirating stuff, but it is possible for people to wi-fi squat so I believe the evidence should be more conclusive before taking a person to court. Speculative invoicing is a perfect example of that bullying you mentioned. If you get a letter just say you have unsecured wifi. As far as I know, there is no law that says you have to secure your wifi. +DonC, +E.Worm Jimmy and Noir Angel 3 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noir Angel Posted April 12, 2015 Share Posted April 12, 2015 Speculative invoicing is a perfect example of that bullying you mentioned. If you get a letter just say you have unsecured wifi. As far as I know, there is no law that says you have to secure your wifi. Or if you have one of those that ships with a router password "I disabled the security to make it easier for my family to use" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Red King Subscriber² Posted April 12, 2015 Subscriber² Share Posted April 12, 2015 Sure I agree here but what does this mean for how they continue to send letters out or have ISP's send notices to stop etc etc. I got one of those damn notices from Comcast cause of a friend downloading crap on his laptop while using my wifi but yet I got blamed lol.Direct downloads seem to be a better choice than torrents for remaining under the radar of greedy corp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Warwagon MVC Posted April 12, 2015 MVC Share Posted April 12, 2015 Direct downloads seem to be a better choice than torrents for remaining under the radar of greedy corp. Or .. *cough* VPN ..*cough* ... fusi0n 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BinaryData Posted April 13, 2015 Author Share Posted April 13, 2015 Speculative invoicing is a perfect example of that bullying you mentioned. If you get a letter just say you have unsecured wifi. As far as I know, there is no law that says you have to secure your wifi. Well, in Washington State, using someoens WiFi without permission, is considered a felony, if I remember the paper right. The funny thing is, someone wrote a program, who attended my school, when you drove around town, it would capture the WiFi Password packets of WEP, decrypt them, and autosave them. According to him, he could drive around town, and never lose wifi, especially down time area. Might be harder now with better encryption. Direct downloads seem to be a better choice than torrents for remaining under the radar of greedy corp. Yes, but even those have problems. They log the data that's been uploaded, by who, and I believe by everyone who downloads it. Or .. *cough* VPN ..*cough* ... Winning sir, just winning. I used to pay for a VPN, but my ISP, literally doesn't give a crap. I've been downloading questionable content since DSL/Cable came out. 15 or so years, not a single letter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Decryptor Veteran Posted April 13, 2015 Veteran Share Posted April 13, 2015 I agree. I do download TV-Shows and movies. I know exactly how this could be fixed. There are enough IPv6 Addresses out there to assign 1 to every person for every device. Absurd thought I know. ... 1 address? I've got 7 at the moment on this system alone. That doesn't change anything though, under IPv6 you should still have a static allocation, and that's what they'll use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
compl3x Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 Well, in Washington State, using someone's WiFi without permission, is considered a felony, if I remember the paper right. I don't know the laws in my country or state but my point was that unless you could prove person X, with X IP, downloaded X show or movie then I would think reasonable doubt would protect the defendant. Or what if you live in a share house with 4 people? Or there are 2 parents and 3 kids connected to the wifi? This is why those producers prefer to send scary letter demanding payment instead of going through the court system. They know that some people are ignorant and will pay up instead of trying their luck in the courts. I don't know how speculative invoicing differs all that much from extortion or a good old fashion shakedown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BinaryData Posted April 13, 2015 Author Share Posted April 13, 2015 1 address? I've got 7 at the moment on this system alone. That doesn't change anything though, under IPv6 you should still have a static allocation, and that's what they'll use. I meant, like if every person was assigned 1 address. You know, like the Government said "Here, you get 3 IPv6 Addresses", and that's all you get. That's what I was meaning. I don't know the laws in my country or state but my point was that unless you could prove person X, with X IP, downloaded X show or movie then I would think reasonable doubt would protect the defendant. Or what if you live in a share house with 4 people? Or there are 2 parents and 3 kids connected to the wifi? This is why those producers prefer to send scary letter demanding payment instead of going through the court system. They know that some people are ignorant and will pay up instead of trying their luck in the courts. I don't know how speculative invoicing differs all that much from extortion or a good old fashion shakedown. I'll never pay up. It's been proven on countless times, that the industry doesn't suffer more than .5% loss in sales. I mean, MPAA is out of its damn mind! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Defcon Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 Govt offices, senators offices, MPAA itself have been caught pirating, of course they are never punished. Kim Dotcom was raided and shut down illegally because the govt is paid for by its corporate shills. The whole thing is a scam to justify draconian laws and take away freedoms. Also our justice system is setup to be corrupt since no longer do they need burden of proof. BinaryData 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunkyMike Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 Govt offices, senators offices, MPAA itself have been caught pirating, of course they are never punished. Kim Dotcom was raided and shut down illegally because the govt is paid for by its corporate shills. The whole thing is a scam to justify draconian laws and take away freedoms. Also our justice system is setup to be corrupt since no longer do they need burden of proof. You reminded me of the helicopter raid video. Totally OTT. Surely they did not expect Kim Dotcom to make a run for it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raa Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 Absolutely agree, and this is where the whole piracy debate in Australia is about to head into a huge hole. (Hopefully) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BinaryData Posted April 14, 2015 Author Share Posted April 14, 2015 The sheer amount of tactical firepower they brought with them is absurd. I mean, Full Automatics, what is this guy, a damn terrorist? Nope. The other thing I found funny was, the FBI had no authority to clone his servers, and sift the data. Not to mention, the court also ordered the FBI to not destroy the data on the drives, but they did it anyways. I don't want to dive into politics, or anything else, simply because this isn't what the topic was created for. --------------- So the jist of everyones replies is; Everyone agrees that an IP Address does not men you, specifically, are responsible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
compl3x Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 I think piracy is a symptom, not the cause, of a much bigger problem that many companies simply aren't willing to deal with. They want a system where they can overcharge and under deliver but those days are over with. Osiris 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BinaryData Posted April 14, 2015 Author Share Posted April 14, 2015 I agree to an extent, compl3x. Piracy is around because companies like the MPAA and the RIAA are the some mongrels as those trying to control the country. In the long run, everyone thinks its all about them, and no one cares about others. If people stopped trying to line their pockets, life would be better. I'm bummed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
compl3x Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 I think it is much simpler than that. Piracy exists because it is easy and free. Piracy enjoys such a foothold because it has been easier and more versatile than buying things legitimately & pricing on a lot of things is still criminally high. This doesn't justify piracy. You can't argue that because something is too expensive it should be OK to just take it, but the temptation and the ease of doing it makes it a likely outcome. Ironically, the ease of buying things from digital retailers (Steam, iTunes, Google Play, etc.) work in the same way. It is easy to sit at your desk and buy stuff and those platforms have proven people are willing to do it. I consider myself a pragmatist, and the most pragmatic way to keep people buying things is to offer them a service or a product that is reliable and useful. The industry for a long time did neither of those things. They thought they could use the law like a blunt instrument to punish pirates. It failed, spectacularly. Shiranui 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts